Why Won't Dems Offer a Budget? - Page 2

AZRWinger · #11 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

To be fair I haven't watched the house or senate in awhile. When Reid doesn't bring something to the senate it is usually one of two reasons. Either it won't pass or the administration and democrats aren't interested in bringing it up (and it probably won't pass anyway).
I do know the house and senate have to approve a bill before it can be signed. Often if the signals from across the way are such there is no need going through the motions. The house is not going to bring an Obama budget to the floor.

Reid has blocked consideration of a Federal budget out of purely political considerations. Passing a budget would mean taking a stand on entitlement reforms as well as creating a tax code reform outline. That is far more difficult than demogoging the Republican's proposal while proposing new deficit spending programs to bribe favored constituencies.

The House did bring Obama's latest budget proposal to a floor vote recently. It was unanimously rejected as was last year's proposal by the Senate. Budget proposals for the OA are a one and done affair. There is no interest in actually enacting a budget, the proposals might as well be written on the back of a cocktail napkin.

The sad truth is President Obama has no experience preparing a budget and complete disdain for working with political opponents in Congress. Fresh off reelection to another term Harry Reid derails the budget in an attempt to shield Obama's profligate spending.

Infidel Dog · #12 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 01:30 PM

To rehash then, here's a right wing perspective on the Debbie Wasserman Schultz interview.

Quote:

Debbie Wasserman Schultz wants it both ways. On attack, she is the chair of the Democratic National Committee, and speaks for the party as a whole. But on defense, she is just a lowly member of the House of Representatives, unable to speak about the anything beyond her limited competence as one of 435 members of the lower chamber.

Last night, Wasserman Schultz appeared on Fox News to comment on the Republican primary elections. In keeping with Democrats’ strategy of making the 2012 contest less a referendum on President Barack Obama and more a comparison between Obama and an allegedly less “likable” Mitt Romney, Wasserman Schultz attacked Romney for supporting the budget of Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), and claimed that President Obama’s budget showed a clear contrast between the priorities of the two parties’ contenders.

Host Bret Baier then challenged Wasserman Schultz to explain why the Senate had not passed President Obama’s budget--or any other. (He could also have mentioned that the house had voted down the White House proposal in a unanimous, bipartisan vote--just as the Senate had rejected the president’s 2011 budget in similar fashion.)

At that, Wasserman Schultz refused to answer, saying she did not speak for the Senate. However, Baier pointed out, Wasserman Schultz had already spoken for the Senate--in an earlier interview on Fox in which she had predicted Majority Leader Harry Reid would pass a budget. (Senate Budget Committee chairman Sen. Kent Conrad (D-SD) did make some attempt to move a budget forward, but was shot down by Reid, who is more afraid of the political consequences of a bad budget than of breaking the law.)

Wasserman Schultz responded by walking back her comments, retreating again into the defense that she cannot speak for Senate Democrats. If that is, in fact, true, then the Democratic Party is treating Wasserman Schultz differently than it has treated all her male predecessors by failing to trust her with the authority to represent the whole party. (“War on women,” anyone?)

More likely, it is a lie--and Wasserman Schultz knows it.

Here’s the truth. President Obama’s budgets are fantasies about what Congress could spend if money were no object. They are not an attempt to square the country’s needs and obligations with its resources. They represent a choice for voters only in the sense that fantasy is an alternative to reality.

Like Obama himself, who is more myth than man, Democrat policies are fairy tales Americans are learning to see through--and beyond.

Is Debbie Wasserman Schultz DNC Chair--Or Isn't She?

Yes, Salty that site has the name of a dead journalist, now prove anything said there incorrect.

cnredd · #13 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 01:44 PM

I like Debbie Wasserman Schultz...Every time she talks, more independents go Republican...I'd like her talking 24/7...

As the Ace of Spades blog says, "The last time I saw a mouth like that it had a Quint in it"...

saltwn · #14 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 01:48 PM

O.K., I turned off Rush (which has been very entertaining today) and will go back and try to get some data from CSpan. Get back to you later, please bump later.

Infidel Dog · #15 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

O.K., I turned off Rush (which has been very entertaining today) and will go back and try to get some data from CSpan. Get back to you later, please bump later.

Hopefully Rush explained to you how the Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, nor do they intend to, because apparently CSpan can't.

AZRWinger · #16 (**permalink**) 04-26-2012, 05:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Infidel Dog

Hopefully Rush explained to you how the Democratic Senate has not passed a budget in 3 years, nor do they intend to, because apparently CSpan can't.

Moreover Senate Democrats haven't even held so much as a hearing on the budget for close to 1,200 days.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following User Says Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
Infidel Dog

The Following User Says Thank You to Infidel Dog For This Useful Post:
AZRWinger